Don't worry about the Warranty

[B_2_B_P]

Am I missing something? Perhaps i'm even miss reading something. The way I read this info it seems to me that you can NOT void your warranty by just changing a part. An exhaust would be a great example.

Here is a web link I found: http://www.turnermotorsport.com/html...nty_info.shtml

[B_2_B_P]

Thank you

[Partsdood]

Good job, TrackRat. People on the net love to throw Magnusson-Moss around like it was a magic spell that cures all warranty issues. Few people actually read it to find out what it really says.

[BrokenVert]

Originally Posted by Partsdood

. Few people actually read it to find out what it really says.

the worst are the people who read one line of it and then take it out of context

[michifan]

Originally Posted by TrackRat

There are many threads on this and heated arguments. For a legal opinion you need to pay a lawyer. From a practical perspective there are a couple considerations.

1. The Magnusson-Moss Act is intended to prevent manufacturer tie-ins to maintain a warranty. In simple terms this means a mfg. can't require you to use genuine OE replacement service parts to maintain your warranty. The MM Act allows you to use OE SPEC replacement service parts and retain your warranty unless the non-genuine part causes damage, in which case your warranty can be voided but the mfg. must prove that the non-genuine part caused the failure.

2. The MM Act in no way states that you can ALTER the vehicle or Mod the vehicle engineered specifications and retain your warranty. This is an issue that many folks have a problem understanding. So OE spec replacement service parts = YES. MODS or ALTERATIONS of the OE engineered specs = Warranty Gone - on the part of the vehicle Modded, such as the powertrain or suspension. The other areas of the warranty remain as long as the Alteration/Mod does not affect that area of the vehicle.

This is all I'm going to say because this is a heated and misunderstood subject and different laws may apply in different states, etc. I suggest that you read your Limited new vehicle warranty carefully and then if you are still unsure, pay for a legal opinion as I don't provide legal advice.

This issue has been litigated to death and the manufacturer needs to demonstrate that the modified part created the problem that the manufacturer is denying warranty. So if you put on a new exhaust and your HPFP fouls out, they need to prove that the exhaust caused the HPFP to crap out.

Dealers are quick to tell you that once you mod they won't fix anything, but once the threat of a real lawsuit hits they will either prove the point or back down.

[My135]

If you scare, stay away from mods. If you got a brave soul like most of us here, mod and have fun. I have moded several new cars, none of my cars had any trouble with warranty issues and I took my car in for warranty service as is with the mods on the car. But, I am taking chances and so far so good, no problem.

[B_2_B_P]

Thank you. I was just curious if there were mod friendly dealers =P. I mean I still want to take advantage of the free oil changes and stuff like that.

[michifan]

Originally Posted by TrackRat

Based on actual legal opinion the powertrain warranty can in fact be voided if you alter the "engineered vehicle specifications" of the powertrain as this is a conditional term of the warranty.

If you want the auto maker new vehicle warranty coverage then you need to comply with the terms of the warranty, you can't make-up your own terms as you go along. No car maker is required to warranty a product that has altered or modified "engineered specifications". The MM Act applies to service parts only, not to altered "engineered specifications", i.e. Mods. All the car maker needs to prove is you violated the terms of the warranty by changing the "engineered specifications".

Federal Law > State Law > ANYTHING in a Contract.

The MM act has been interpreted by the courts to mean that an aftermarket modification that creates a problem normally covered by warranty can be denied by the manufacturer. A manufacturer cannot, however, deny a warranty claim if the claim cannot be shown to have been caused by the modification. Of course the dealer is going to have the benefit of bringing in mechanics and other experts to prove their case, but that is what makes trials so much fun.

This is settled law, and while there are dealers that will tell you otherwise, I guarantee that once you threaten litigation, unless your modification really did cause the problem, they will fold immediately. They know they will not win.

[michifan]

Originally Posted by TrackRat

Actually as posted above and confirmed by three lawyers the conditional term of not "altering the vehicles engineered specifications", which is part of the new vehicle warrant, is enforceable. The MM Act does not apply to modifications it applies to service parts. There is a clear difference as a service part is meant to be an OE spec replacement part. It is not intended to "alter the vehicle engineered specifications".

Are the lawyers you are calling familiar with consumer protection and case law specifically on the MM Act? I doubt it. Tell them to go to findlaw, there are tons of examples.

You just cannot read a law and interpret it yourself. This has been settled in the courts and specifically the FTC.

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 16 - Commercial Practices
Chapter I - Federal Trade Commission, Subchapter G - Rules, Regulations, Statements and Interpretations Under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
Section 700.10
(c) No warrantor may condition the continued validity of a warranty on the use of only authorized repair service and/or authorized replacement parts for non-warranty service and maintenance. For example, provisions such as, "This warranty is void if service is performed by anyone other than an authorized 'ABC' dealer and all replacement parts must be genuine 'ABC' parts," and the like, are prohibited where the service or parts are not covered by the warranty. These provisions violate the Act in two ways. First, they violate the section 102(c) ban against tying arrangements. Second, such provisions are deceptive under section 110 of the Act, because a warrantor cannot, as a matter of law, avoid liability under a written warranty where a defect is unrelated to the use by a consumer of "unauthorized" articles or service. This does not preclude a warrantor from expressly excluding liability for defects or damage caused by such "unauthorized" articles or service; nor does it preclude the warrantor from denying liability where the warrantor can demonstrate that the defect or damage was so caused.”

This issue has been settled for over 20 years, the fact that people want to believe dealers / manufacturers that are trying to keep their costs down by intentionally lying to customers is beyond my comprehension.

Point. Set. Match.

[michifan]

Originally Posted by TrackRat

Actually my post was based on legal opinion and actual court cases. One lawyer specializes in consumer protection law, another in contracts and the third in corporate law. The one who specializes in consumer law is an immediately family member employed by a rather large NYC law firm. All three reviewed the BMW and a couple other brands of new vehicle warranties - at my request and provided their legal opinion based on both law and actual courtroom experience.

I'm not a lawyer nor do I give legal advice. My suggestion is to pay for a legal opinion and if you're feeling lucky go to court and see what results you get.

It should be obvious to anyone with a little technical understanding that the MM Act info. quoted above supports the point that I made regarding OE spec parts vs. Alterations, i.e. Mods. The MM Act does not apply to "alterations to the vehicle engineered specifications" which is a conditional clause of the new vehicle warranty so you can forget that argument. It won't fly in a courtroom. No manufacturer can be forced to warranty a product in a form it was never designed, engineered, tested or sold.

This is settled law. Your lawyer friend is either unaware of the case law or misunderstood what we are arguing. The fact is that the FTC has enforced this law many, many times.

To be very specific, a manufacturer can not deny a warranty claim with regard to aftermarket parts unless the aftermarket part was responsible for the failure. If you install a DCI and the dealer tells you they won't fix an oil leak that has nothing to do with the DCI, that dealer is in violation of the MMA and you can sue and once you win, you can reclaim you attorney fees.

And I'm not saying that a dealer cannot claim that a tune created an overboost that fried a turbo. I'm saying that a dealer cannot say that because you have installed certain aftermarket parts your warranty is null and void.

I've cited the specific FTC code with respect to their ruling on the MMA. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

When I worked at Ford, I needed to be acutely aware MMA, as well as provisions in the CAA that affected aftermarket parts. Trust me, a manufacturer / dealer will go out of their way to find a link between a modification and the defect, but if it cannot be proven it won't go past the regional rep for the manufacturer.

Prove me wrong. Have your attorney friend cite a single federal ruling that allowed the manufacturer to deny a warrantable claim because of an aftermarket modification not directly related to the claim.

[B_2_B_P]

oh i see thank you
I love smart people

[michifan]

Originally Posted by TrackRat

That's why we have courtrooms for lawyers to present their views on applicable case law.

If owners actually read their Limited new vehicle warranty it tells you exactly what is and what is not covered. The warranty covers only defects in material or workmanship. It does not cover:

1. Abuse
2. Negligence
3. Alterations
4. Accidents

The MM Act also does not cover the above exceptions to the limited new vehicle warranty. If you actually read the MM Act you will see that it applies only to service parts and is not relevant to warranty claims for altered vehicles.

The limited new vehicle warranty is a contract that provides rights to the owner based on the owner operating and maintaining the vehicle as required by the manufacturer. The warranty clearly states the above situations are not covered by the new vehicle warranty and these warranty terms are enforceable.

BTW, dealers have no say what so ever in deciding warranty claims. That is up to the car maker, not the dealer. The dealers are independent businesses. The car maker is the only one who can make any decisions regarding warranty coverage. If they tell the dealer it's not covered, then the dealer doesn't get paid.

I spent 10 years in the auto industry, most of it at Ford as a Finance Executive. One of my role was financial responsibility for the 2.5/3.0L Cleveland II engine program - including warranty. I knew what our exposure was for MMA, CAA, UCC... Everyone in the auto industry knows that you need to be able to demonstrate that the aftermarket part contributed to the failure to remove it from warranty coverage. That's why manufacturers have forensic diagnosticians that will go through your car for any evidence of something that might have caused the problem if they are suspicious.

But, no manufacturer is going to waste money on a frivolous warranty void if there isn't direct proof. MMA cases rarely get to trial, most are settled to the benefit of the consumer. MMA provides for recovery of attorneys fees and class action lawyers are always sniffing around for the opportunity for a big payday.

In court cases there are disagreements in law and disagreements in facts. Disagreements in law are when two may agree on a set of facts, but disagree on whether the law applies to those facts. Disagreement in facts are when people don't agree on the facts, but effectively aren't challenging the law. Both may also apply.

In the case of the MMA, there are very few disagreements in law because the act has been litigated and expanded by the FTC.

But you and I aren't arguing about disagreements in facts - I'm saying that when there is no disagreement as to whether the modification created the problem, the warranty is solid. You are saying that the manufacturer can refuse to honor the warranty when they know that the problem wasn't created by the modification. In this scenario, it wouldn't even get to trial because Federal Law is clear in this matter.

Further, contract language is irrelevant. MMA trumps everything and anything in the contract that might circumvent the law. In other words, they can write anything they want, but the law is the law.

If you don't believe me. Call the FTC. Tell them you want to wage a complaint against a dealer who is canceling your warranty because you put in an aftermarket air filter and the dealer won't fix an oil leak that has nothing to do with the filter change.

I guess I'm done with this argument. You haven't produced anything other than your opinions and the possibility that you have a relative or friend that is a lawyer. A single call to the FTC, or a 'Lemon Lawyer' would quickly answer this question the same way I am.

Normally I would let this kind of internet debate go, but it really is important that people know their rights. If your mod creates a problem, the manufacturer can refuse to fix it for free. If the problem was unrelated, don't argue with the dealer - ask for the regional rep and stay calm. Ask them for written documentation on how the modification caused the problem they are refusing to fix under warranty. If they don't produce anything, call the FTC or go directly to a 'Lemon Lawyer' in your state.

These kind of shenanigans shouldn't happen with a high-line dealer like BMW. Happens a lot with Fords and Chevys, because people tend to do some really dumb DIY work on their cars.

Nobody should install any modifications without knowing what problems it could create down the line. An Oil Catch Can, FMIC, DCI must be defective in order to harm an engine. A tune is a bit more challenging as you could easily overboost the engine and create a whole host of problems that a dealer can see once they tear your engine apart. As long as you don't do anything stupid, you should be ok. Just know your rights and don't get into arguments with people that don't have the authority to make decisions.

[ethermal]

Originally Posted by TrackRat

Actually as posted above and confirmed by three lawyers the conditional term of not "altering the vehicles engineered specifications", which is part of the new vehicle warrant, is enforceable. The MM Act does not apply to modifications it applies to service parts. There is a clear difference as a service part is meant to be an OE spec replacement part. It is not intended to "alter the vehicle engineered specifications".

I'm definitely not a lawyer and i'm not necessarily arguing your point but what is the difference between a service part and a mod? For example if I went into Midas to get a new muffler for my car would that be considered a service part or a mod? I think it could be argued that any part not made and sold by the OEM changes the engineering specifications.

[michifan]

Originally Posted by TrackRat

A service part is a direct replacement OE spec part like an oil filter, sparkplug, muffler, etc. A Mod is when you install a part to change the performance of the vehicle from it's original engineered specifications. Let me give you an example.

If you replaced the OE front coil springs with a replacement OE spec spring from company ABC that was designed to be an exact OE replacement to the original spring, i.e. the same spring rate, length, etc. that would be a typical service part.

If you decided you wanted to change the handling or looks of the car by installing front coil springs with a different spring rate, ride height, etc. that is a Mod because the part is not designed to be a direct OE spec replacement, it is intended to alter the vehicle's engineered specifications.

As far as a muffler, the situation is the same. If you go to Midas or any other repair facility and request an OE spec muffler and they install the correct OE spec replacement muffler properly, no problem. If you go to Midas/other facility or you decide to do the work yourself and you install a low restriction muffler, that is a Mod because you are changing the vehicle engineered specifications, be it for more performance, noise, looks, etc.

This is precisely why the warranty states that alterations that alter the vehicle engineered specifications void the warranty.

You can define things anyway you like. A modification is a modification, whether it is for an airfilter, springs, a FMIC or an exhaust.

Your muffler example is way off base. If you go to Midas and get a MIDAS OE Spec (whatever) muffler and it causes a problem, BMW will tell you to go to MIDAS for its repair. Its a lot like Dinan, that way.

BMW cannot, however, void your warranty on an oil leak in the engine if you go with a Midas, AR Design or just run nothing - UNLESS they can demonstrate that the muffler created the problem.


This is the FTC code. It supersedes the MMA (doesn't conflict, just expands).

"No warrantor may condition the continued validity of a warranty on the use of only authorized repair service and/or authorized replacement parts for non-warranty service and maintenance. For example, provisions such as, "This warranty is void if service is performed by anyone other than an authorized 'ABC' dealer and all replacement parts must be genuine 'ABC' parts," and the like, are prohibited where the service or parts are not covered by the warranty. These provisions violate the Act in two ways. First, they violate the section 102(c) ban against tying arrangements. Second, such provisions are deceptive under section 110 of the Act, because a warrantor cannot, as a matter of law, avoid liability under a written warranty where a defect is unrelated to the use by a consumer of "unauthorized" articles or service. This does not preclude a warrantor from expressly excluding liability for defects or damage caused by such "unauthorized" articles or service; nor does it preclude the warrantor from denying liability where the warrantor can demonstrate that the defect or damage was so caused.”

[michifan]

Originally Posted by TrackRat

michifan-

You're reading all kinds of things into the posts that were never stated nor implied. What I posted was correct and I tried to make it easy for everyone to understand. An OE spec part does not alter the vehicle engineered specifications. A part that does alter the engineered specifications is a Mod and can void that section of the warranty as it is a conditional exclusion clause of the warranty as are negligence, abuse and accidents.

Neither the MM Act or FTC code say that a manufacturer must warranty a vehicle with altered engineering specification. They say that a mfg. can't deny warranty for use of a service part that is not a genuine OE part. No where does it say that you can alter the vehicle engineered specifications and retain your warranty coverage for that section of the warranty.

If you Mod the engine you still retain the warranty for other areas of the vehicle except for the powertrain as long as the mods have no impact on other areas of the vehicle.

And it's OK to disagree... That's why they have courtrooms.

I know you mean well, but you are giving inaccurate information on this site.

Federal Law prohibits full warranties from being voided in total until the vehicle is either taken out of service or the warranty period expires. Under Federal Law, there is no such thing as 'voiding' a warranty.

Also, there is no such thing as a powertrain warranty, a cooling warranty or a air conditioning warranty. With BMW you have what is called a "full" warranty. For purposes of illustration, they can break it up anyway they want - but according to Federal Law, you only have one warranty with BMW - for the full vehicle.

Further, Federal Law only allows manufacturers to not correct an otherwise warrantable repair when they can demonstrate that the customer made a modification that substantially lead to the problem.

As far as engineered spec, I hope you realize that virtually every part has a tight engineering spec. Replacing your rims is a change in the OE Spec. Changing the air filter material is a change in the engineering spec. It is damn near impossible to modify anything without changing the engineering spec. That's why the FTC specifically says that the manufacturer cannot avoid liability for the customers use of "unauthorized' parts or services UNLESS those "unauthorized" parts or services are directly responsible for an otherwise warrantable repair.

You keep going back to your interpretation of the 1975 law and I keep showing you the current FTC code (law) that trumps all contracts and any State laws.

I'm not going to argue that the manufacturer can opt not to repair an otherwise warrantable defect because the consumer made a modification that substantially deteriorated the intended use. But the law specifically, and unambiguously states

"a warrantor cannot, as a matter of law, avoid liability under a written warranty where a defect is unrelated to the use by a consumer of "unauthorized" articles or service. This does not preclude a warrantor from expressly excluding liability for defects or damage caused by such "unauthorized" articles or service; nor does it preclude the warrantor from denying liability where the warrantor can demonstrate that the defect or damage was so caused."

The FTC has determined that you cannot 'tie-in' or require certain parts or services, unless you can demonstrate that certain parts or services compromise the product. Further, the FTC has determined that a vehicle's warranty isn't singular. The warranty coverage is separable and while your use of non-BMW brake pads may allow them to opt out of fixing a rotor problem, it certainly has nothing to do with anything in the engine.

I've spent half my career in the auto industry, all of my career in manufacturing. I'm the CFO of a division of a Fortune 500 consumer products business and I know what we can claim as a warranty violation and what we cannot.

As a business leader, I'd love to have the ability to break warranties easily - as a consumer, I appreciate the protection that the FTC gives us.

Telling people that they don't have certain rights is really not a cool thing. Proclaiming an opinion, but then saying 'I'm not a lawyer (buyer beware)' doesn't remove your own moral responsibility.


If I wasn't 100% sure in what I am saying, I wouldn't be such a nuisance on this - but I'd be willing to let you set the wager amount that I am correct - and I know that there isn't a single document you could provide that would prove otherwise.

I have been unambiguous on this, Federal Law REQUIRES the manufacturer to abide by the full vehicle warranty in all cases UNLESS the customer has made a modification to the original vehicle that specifically caused a specific failure. It is unlawful to preemptively breach the contract. The dealer can 'tag' your VIN, so that when you do come back for a warranty repair, the dealer can quickly determine whether your modification lead to the failure, but they cannot say 'if you do this, you will lose your warranty'

We can keep going back and forth on this, but you haven't provided anything other than pulling your own, uninformed personal interpretation of a law that has been modified and ruled on for over 35 years. You said you had case-law, but you haven't cited a single case; because none exists. Call the FTC, call a local Lemon Lawyer (I can give you a few names), call K&N, Pep Boys, Aamco - heck, you could even call BMW corporate. This is an area of consumer protection that is not in dispute by the manufacturers. The only question we have when we learn about the mod is 'can we prove that the mod created the problem.' Telling the customer that their warranty is void because of a mod might scare the customer, but as soon as they call an attorney it's settled.

The only time this ever gets to court is when the customer and the manufacturer are in conflict over whether the modification led to the failure. Manufacturers are loathe to go to court because not only does this lead to potential class action suits related to the defect, but if they lose they have to pay the customers full legal costs. Lemon Lawyers LOVE these suits.

So seriously, please stop commenting on this issue - because you are giving people inaccurate advice.

[GaryS]

BMW sells BMW Performance parts that alter the engineered specs. BMW can claim that their performance parts are okay but no one else's are, but the claim wouldn't have a chance in an American court. We don't allow anti-competition here. BMW has to prove that the specific part caused the specific damage.

[michifan]

Originally Posted by GaryS

BMW sells BMW Performance parts that alter the engineered specs. BMW can claim that their performance parts are okay but no one else's are, but the claim wouldn't have a chance in an American court. We don't allow anti-competition here. BMW has to prove that the specific part caused the specific damage.

Yes, but in this specific BMW does warrant their Performance Parts for merchantability and use - so that they would have repair responsibility for x years or miles (whichever is the standard).

See also Dinan's backstop warranty. Dinan picks up the warranty if their parts create an otherwise warrantable problem that BMW shows was caused by the Dinan Mod. BMW dealers know that Dinan mods are on the car. If you have a Dinan Mod, BMW isn't sending you to a Dinan shop for a HPFP repair. They will only send you over to Dinan when they can demonstrate that the specific Dinan modification caused a downstream issue that BMW will not cover with their warranty.


I really cannot believe in the face of so much facts that there is dispute on this issue.

[GaryS]

Originally Posted by michifan

I really cannot believe in the face of so much facts that there is dispute on this issue.

I think the reason is that BMW is pushing very aggressively against tuners and is just daring everyone to sue. Dinan won't sue because BMW's aggressiveness helps his business model. Jim Conforti said it was too expensive for him to sue. And as you say, when pushed hard enough, BMWNA just settles to avoid a judgment. Sooner or later, BMWNA will piss off the right millionaire and end up in court.

[008]

I've dealt with this issue on two different cars from different manufacturers/importers(eg BMWNA who is in charge of US Claims), and dealers. While I agree with Michifan, in practice it gets a lot more complicated. Saying things like "I guarantee once a regional rep hears about it they will bend over" (paraphrasing of course) is not helpful either because it isn't true. One issue I had with Porsche NA specifically, they admitted they could not prove conclusively that it was the AM part that caused the failure but still refused to cover the repair cost. Their claim was that because a part of the suspension was modified they were not going to warrant any of the suspension because there is a chance it could effect the original design/function. They basically said, sue us, if we lose, we'll cover it. The part in question that failed was a suspension bolt that sheared causing collapse of the suspension. I had aftermarket springs on the car sold to me by the selling (porsche) dealer and manufactured under a license by a subsidary of the world's largest porsche dealer. The total repair including a new tire etc was just under $3k. It wasn't worth my time or effort to litigate even though I had a pretty strong case.

[michifan]

Originally Posted by GaryS

I think the reason is that BMW is pushing very aggressively against tuners and is just daring everyone to sue. Dinan won't sue because BMW's aggressiveness helps his business model. Jim Conforti said it was too expensive for him to sue. And as you say, when pushed hard enough, BMWNA just settles to avoid a judgment. Sooner or later, BMWNA will piss off the right millionaire and end up in court.

BMW isn't pushing any harder against tuners than they should. The truth is that many people abuse a tune and create havoc on the engine. BMW has every right to deny a repair for a tune related problem. The issue is (contrary to Track Rat's misunderstanding) that the law is mostly on the side of consumers.

Even to the extent that the BT tool can erase fault codes, BMW still employs very good forensic warranty mechanics that will look at the engine and determine whether a tune or mod created a problem. When they have sufficient evidence, they will deny the claim and you can sue them until the cows come home - they'll probably have better experts than you.

The argument that I have with TR is that under no circumstances can or does BMW flatly void a warranty because of the presence of a tune. If they ever started, the first people you'd hear from are the Dinan customers, because BMW knows they have a tune and Dinan backstops the warranty for ALL instances where their tune creates a warranty denial. So, if BMW started saying that any tune = no warranty, a very quick class action suit would result.

I'm not on the side of tuners here. Frankly I think that most of the tunes allow the customer to push the engine well past reasonable limits. BMW has every right to refuse claims for problems created by tunes over and above their spec. But proximity doesn't equal culpability in warranty cases. The manufacturer cannot just say there was a tune and a failure, we blame the tune. They have to be able to show that the tune caused the failure. It's not a hard thing to prove for certain problems, but I can guarantee you that if you have a HPFP problem and a tune, BMW isn't going to be able to show that the tune caused the HPFP issue given their admitted lack of understanding on what is actually causing the HPFP issue.

This warranty denial is urban myth and uneducated SA talk. The people that have had their warranties compromised from BMW have been people whose mods caused the denied problem.

When I worked for Ford, I used to counsel my friends about their rights - because most of the dealers were schmucks about service. I think its unconscionable for dealers to lie to people when the truth is pretty straight forward - 'mod if you want, but if we find out the mod creates a problem, we aren't going to cover that problem'.

[michifan]

Originally Posted by 008

I've dealt with this issue on two different cars from different manufacturers/importers(eg BMWNA who is in charge of US Claims), and dealers. While I agree with Michifan, in practice it gets a lot more complicated. Saying things like "I guarantee once a regional rep hears about it they will bend over" (paraphrasing of course) is not helpful either because it isn't true. One issue I had with Porsche NA specifically, they admitted they could not prove conclusively that it was the AM part that caused the failure but still refused to cover the repair cost. Their claim was that because a part of the suspension was modified they were not going to warrant any of the suspension because there is a chance it could effect the original design/function. They basically said, sue us, if we lose, we'll cover it. The part in question that failed was a suspension bolt that sheared causing collapse of the suspension. I had aftermarket springs on the car sold to me by the selling (porsche) dealer and manufactured under a license by a subsidary of the world's largest porsche dealer. The total repair including a new tire etc was just under $3k. It wasn't worth my time or effort to litigate even though I had a pretty strong case.

Yes, but you are proving my point.

The manufacturer can claim that your modification caused the need for repair. At that point it is a matter of fact, not a matter of law. The dealer wasn't saying (or documenting) that they were voiding the warranty for an unrelated issue - they were contending that the modification caused the problem.

I realize this is hindsight, but you could have done the following

1) Get written documentation from the dealer as to the specific reason that the warranty claim is being denied.
2) Take that to a Lemon Lawyer.
3) Have Lemon Lawyer review document. If he thinks you have a case, have said Lemon Lawyer write letter to manufacturer and dealer, saying that they were in violation of the MMA. This will cost you about $200-300 depending on his / her hourly charge.
4) Your lawyer will direct you to an independent mechanic who will look at the damage and give his opinion (in writing) on whether there is a reasonable cause-effect. (Maybe $50).
5) If the manufacturer/dealer still says no dice, your lawyer will most likely tell you to get the car fixed at the dealer - even if you have to pay.
6) Your lawyer (if he's honest) will tell you whether you have a solid case. If you win, you'll get reimbursed for all your legal expenses.

For $3,000, I'd take the couple hours of work and $250 out of pocket. But, I'm pretty aggressive when people try to take advantage of me.

Given my history working for Ford, I can tell you that we only went to court when we knew we were going to win and the size of the damage was significant. Most of the time we settled, even when we thought we were in the right.

[008]

Which is why I said I agreed with you.

I had a lawyer involved once the repair was officially denied. I spent more than $250 on legal fees and litigation would have been signifacantly more. Independent experts to refute the engineering claims estimated costs north of $10k. Associates and paralegal's time for research and deposing the installer, repairing dealer, PCNA case worker etc would have been in the tens of thousands as well. If we won, I would have received reimbursement for my costs but I would never get back my time. I also have a hard time accepting being screwed and have the financial where withall to fight the good fight but for $3k it just wasn't worth it. My attorney and I felt we had a good case but at the end of the day he admitted it would really be more of a moral victory and some nice fees for his firm. I bought him lunch instead and moved on with my life.